- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Unique Motor And... v. The New India Assura...
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a First Appeal by the Unique Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, Bombay and Bikram Singh (appellants) against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab (the Tribunal). The Tribunal had allowed Rs. 6,600 as compensation to Piara Singh for injuries sustained in a road accident on 3 July 1959. The Tribunal apportioned liability so that Unique Motor & General Insurance Company (insurer of a truck, registration given as No. PNE-4809) was to pay Rs. 4,400 and New India Assurance Company Limited, New Delhi (insurer of the bus referenced in the opinion variously as PNB-1530 and PNE-1530) was to pay Rs. 2,200.
The New India Assurance Company Limited filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking reduction of their liability to Rs. 2,000.
Factual summary as found by the Tribunal: Piara Singh was travelling as a passenger in a bus plying between Bhatinda and Faridkot. Near village Gondhara at about 5 P.M. a truck (driven by Megh Raj) coming from the opposite direction collided with the bus. Piara Singh's right hand was seriously injured; he was admitted to Faridkot hospital. He filed a claim under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming Rs. 20,000 and stating his monthly earnings at about Rs. 300. The Tribunal framed issues on negligence, quantum and source of compensation, and relief, heard evidence and awarded Rs. 6,600 as compensation with liability apportioned between the two insurers as noted above.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the bus driver or the truck driver, or due to contributory negligence of both or of the applicant (Piara Singh)?
- What is the quantum of compensation due and from whom?
- Relief.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments (Unique Motor & General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Bikram Singh)
- Contended that the evidence showed the accident occurred more due to the negligence of the bus driver and that both drivers were, at least, equally responsible; accordingly the Tribunal should have apportioned liability equally between the insurers.
- Argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and not calculated according to accepted principles.
Cross-Objector's Arguments (New India Assurance Company Limited)
- By cross-objection (Order 41, Rule 22 CPC) contended that their liability should be limited to Rs. 2,000 and sought reduction of the Tribunal's award against them.
Respondent's Arguments (Piara Singh)
- Respondent's counsel contended that the cross-objections filed by New India Assurance Company Limited were not entertainable in law. He relied on Jan Mohammad v. P.N. Razdon (A.I.R. 1944 Lah 433) for the proposition that a respondent cannot file cross-objections against a co-respondent when he has not appealed from the decree and the cross-objections do not affect the appellant.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vanguard Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarla Devi, 1959 P.L.R. 683 | “That the appellate Court should not interfere with the amount of damages assessed by the trial Court unless it is satisfied that the trial Court had acted upon a wrong principle of law or the amount awarded was so unreasonably high that it must be assumed that the Court had been influenced by some wrong principle of law.” | The court relied on this principle to decline interference with the Tribunal's assessment of compensation, finding the Tribunal's estimate reasonable and based on moderate assumptions. |
| State of Punjab v. Mrs. Phool Kumari, 1962 P.L.R. 912 | Reiterates the same view regarding appellate restraint in disturbing trial court awards of damages. | The court cited this case to support refusal to disturb the Tribunal's compensation assessment and proportions of liability. |
| Jan Mohammad v. P.N. Razdon, A.I.R. 1944 Lah 433 | Held that a respondent cannot file cross-objections against a co-respondent when he has not appealed from the decree and when the cross-objections do not affect the appellant. | The court relied on this precedent to hold that the cross-objections filed by New India Assurance Company Limited do not lie and are not entertainable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the Tribunal's findings on factual evidence and the apportionment of negligence. The Tribunal had framed the issues on negligence and quantum and, after evaluating witnesses, found:
- The Tribunal accepted the evidence that the truck driver (Megh Raj) was mainly responsible for the collision. The Tribunal allocated liability two-thirds to the truck driver and one-third to the bus driver. This allocation was based on testimony that the truck was being driven at high speed and could not be controlled, and the truck driver had been convicted by a criminal court for rash and negligent driving in relation to this incident.
- The Tribunal disbelieved portions of certain defence witnesses (notably Mohinder Singh R.W.1, Megh Raj R.W.2, and Santokh Singh R.W.3) because statements were vague, indefinite or inconsistent (for example, contradictory statements by Santokh Singh). The Tribunal relied instead on consistent testimony from Harminder Singh and Piara Singh and on Narain Singh's account of the truck's behavior and speed.
- The court reviewed credibility findings and concluded that the Tribunal's factual findings—particularly that the truck driver was more at fault—could not be successfully challenged on cogent grounds. The court observed that a truck driver should be especially careful when passing a passenger-carrying bus; failure to do so supported the Tribunal's apportionment.
- On quantum, the Tribunal accepted that Piara Singh previously earned (or could have earned) a reasonable income and was left with severe disability. Piara Singh had stated past earnings (the Tribunal accepted a conservative earning capacity figure of at least Rs. 100 per month for five more years) and Dr. Jagat Ram Khatri (A.W.2) opined that the disability of the applicant's hand exceeded 90 per cent. The Tribunal's calculation of future loss (Rs. 6,000) and overall compensation of Rs. 6,600 was held by the court to be moderate and properly founded on the evidence.
- The court applied the appellate restraint principle (as articulated in Vanguard Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarla Devi and reiterated in State of Punjab v. Mrs. Phool Kumari) and therefore declined to interfere with the Tribunal's damage assessment because there was no showing of a wrong principle of law or an unreasonably high award.
- Regarding procedure, the court addressed the cross-objections filed by New India Assurance Company Limited and, relying on Jan Mohammad v. P.N. Razdon, concluded that those cross-objections are not maintainable where a respondent has not appealed and the cross-objections do not affect the appellant. Consequently, the cross-objections were held to be untenable.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSITION: Both the appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed with costs.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The Tribunal's award of Rs. 6,600 in favour of Piara Singh stands.
- The apportionment of liability ordered by the Tribunal remains in force: Unique Motor and General Insurance Company Limited (insurer of the truck) remains liable for Rs. 4,400; New India Assurance Company Limited (insurer of the bus) remains liable for Rs. 2,200.
- The cross-objections filed by New India Assurance Company Limited are rejected as not maintainable under the cited precedent.
Broader legal implications: The opinion applies established principles limiting appellate interference with trial court awards of damages and confirms the procedural principle restricting cross-objections by respondents who have not appealed. The court did not purport to create or overturn any novel precedent.
1. This First Appeal by the Unique Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, Bombay and Bikram Singh appellants is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) who under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, allowed Rs. 6,600/- as compensation to Piara Singh for the injuries received by him in the accident which took place on 3rd July, 1959. Rs. 4,400/- were to be paid by the Unique Motor and General Insurance Company Limited. Bombay, and the balance of Rs. 2,200/- was made payable by the New India Assurance Company Limited, New Delhi, insurer of bus No. PNB-1530, by which the injured was travelling at the time of the accident. The Uniqe Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, Bombay was the insurer of truck No. PNE-4809 which collided with the bus and in the course Piara Singh received the injuries.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, New Delhi, have also filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure contesting their liability to pay more than Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the injured person. They pray that the award of the Tribunal against them be reduced to Rs. 2,000/- only.
3. The fact relevant for the disposal of the appeal and the cross-objections may briefly be stated. Piara Singh on 3rd July, 1959 was traveiling as a passenger in bus No. PNE-1530, which was plying between Bhatinda and Farid kot. Narain Singh driver was driving the bus. When it reached near village Gondhara at about 5 P.M truck No. PNE driven by Megh Raj was seen coming from the opposite direction. The truck and bus collided as a result of which Piara Singh's right hand was seriously injured. He was removed to Faridkot hospital where he remained as an indoor patient for sometime. Dr. Jagat Ram Khatri, A.W 2, on examination noticed 13 injuries on his body, out of which 5 were grievous. Several bones of his right hand were found fractured. He filed a petition under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation. He mentioned therein that he was earning about Rs. 300/- P.M as wages at the relevant time. The application proceeded against Managing Director, Gondhara Transport Company Private Limited, Faridkot (respondent No. 1) owner of the bus, the New India Assurance Company Limited New Delhi (respondent No. 2), the Unique Motor & General Insurance Company Limited, Bombay (respondent No. 3) and Bikram Singh (respondent No. 4) owner of the truck. The respondents resisted the above claim application.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues:—
1. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the bus driver or the truck driver or due to contributory negligence of both or of the applicant?
2. What is the quantum of compensation due and from whom?
3. Relief.
5. The parties did not claim any other issue. The Tribunal after considering the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was mainly responsible for the accident but driver of the bus was also liable to some extent. He fixed the latter's liability at one-third and that of the truck driver at two-third. He did not find any material on the record to warrant contributory negligence on the part of Piara Singh applicant towards the accident. He assessed the compensation at Rs. 6,600/- and made the two Insurance Companies pay in the proportion already recapitulated. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the evidence on the record indicated that the accident took place more due to the negligence of the bus driver and that in any case both the drivers were equally responsible for it and that being so the Tribunal should have ordered payment of the compensation admissible to the applicant in equal shares. He also maintained that the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant was excessive and not calculated in accordance with the accepted principles. The applicant examined Narain Singh A.W 1 and Harminder Singh A.W 3 besides himself as A.W 4. Narain Singh A.W 1 was driving the bus at the time of the accident. He described that the truck was seen coming by him from the opposite side at excessive speed and was also wobbling and so he in order to protect his bus, turned more to the left side of the road but in spite of it the truck dashed into the right side of his bus. He further stated that as a result of the accident Piara Singh's right arm got fractured. The witness also received injuries and both of the injured persons were taken to the hospital. He admitted that the truck must have been running at the speed of 50 miles per hour when it collided with the bus. Megh Raj driver of the truck was convicted for rash and negligent driving and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment by the trial Court. It may also be mentioned here that the witness during 25 years of his service was involved for the first time in the present accident. Harminder Singh A.W 3 was travelling alongwith Piara Singh applicant in the bus at the time of the accident. According to him, the truck was seen by him coming from the opposite side and that both the drivers of the truck and bus lost control of their vehicles and this resulted in the accident. Piara Singh applicant as P.W 4 deposed that the bus was going on its proper side at a speed of 25 or 30 miles per hour, but the truck came from the opposite side at a fast speed and as the driver of the truck could not control his vehicle, it dashed into the bus, he then described the injuries received by him as a result of the accident. Mohinder Singh, Panchayat Officer (R.W 1) stated that he also was travelling in the ill-fated bus which was going at a speed of 40 to 45 miles per hour when the driver being an old man lost control of the vehicle and as a result it dashed into the truck coming from the opposite side. He was not examined by police and he was not able to describe the portion of the truck which came into collision with the bus. He was also not able to explain whether the truck at the time of the accident was on the Kacha or Pucca portion of the road. He did not recollect whether the driver of the truck was a Hindu or Sikh. His statement was ignored by the Tribunal because the same was vague and indefinite. I am also not inclined to attach any value to it. Megh Raj R.W 2 was the driver of the truck. He deposed in terms of the statement of Mohinder Singh. He admitted having been convicted by the Magistrate for rash and negligent driving of his truck. His statement also failed to impress the Tribunal and also this Court. Santokh Singh R.W 3 also supported Megh Raj R.W 2. He lodged the first information Report which was different from what he gave out before the Tribunal. He was disbelieved and for good reasons because of the two contradictory statements made by him on the same affair. The Tribunal relying on the statements of Harminder Singh and Piara Singh conclued that the driver of the truck was driving the truck at a high speed and as he could not control it, the same collided with the bus causing injuries to the applicant. His conclusions could not be assailed on any cogent ground. The driver of the truck was expected to be more careful when crossing the bus which was carrying passengers. His negligence to do so cannot be lightly ignored. Therefore it could legitimately be held that he was more responsible for the unfortunate accident than the driver of the bus. Consequently Tribunal's order fixing the liabilities of the truck and bus drivers in the proportion of two to one is sound in law and based on facts firmly brought out on the record. There is hardly any justification for coming to any other inference.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants' argument that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the amount of compensation admissible to the applicant is devoid of any force. The applicant gave out that sometime back he was working as an Accountant in the Gondhara Transport Company and was getting Rs. 155/- P.M as his salary and that he was doing nothing after the accident because of the injury to his right hand. Dr. Jagat Ram Kharti A.W 2 opined that the disability of the applicant's hand was more then 90 per cent. The Tribunal observed that the applicant could have earned at least Rs. 100/- P.M for 5 years more and so the loss to him on account of the injury came to Rs. 6000/-. His estimate of the loss to the applicant is on moderate side and indeed cannot be interfered with at this stage. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Vanguard Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarla Devi . 1959 P.L.R 683 wherein it was held:—
“That the appellate Court should not interfere with the amount of damages assessed by the trial Court unless it is satisfied that the trial Court had acted upon a wrong principle of law or the amount awarded was so unreasonably high that it must be assumed that the Court had been influenced by some wrong principle of law.”
7. The same view was reiterated subsequently in State of Punjab v. Mrs. Phool Kumari . 1962 P.L.R 912.. The order of the Tribunal as regards the amount of compensation admissible to the applicant and the proportion in which the same had to be paid by the two Insurance Companies is unexceptionable.
8. The learned counsel for Piara Singh respondent contended that the cross-objections put in by the New India Assurance Company Limited were not entertainable under the law. In support of his argument he relied on Jan Mohammad v. P.N Razdon . A.I.R 1944 Lah 433. which laid down that a respondent cannot file cross objections against a corespondent when he has not appealed from the decree and the cross-objections do not in any way affect the appellant I have not been referred to any authority to the contrary Therefore, I hold that the cross-objections do not lie.
9. For the reasons given above, both the appeal and cross-objections are dismissed with costs.
10. Appeal and cross-objections dismissed.
Alert